Talk:Orient/Archive 1

Unsectioned initial conversation

Previously the article read like a puff piece for the political correctness movement. No doubt the views of the US political correctness movement deserve some brief mention (which I have preserved), but the article should surely concentrate on the Orient itself, rather than the arguments put forward by the PC lobby of the United States. Elsewhere, I have tried to make the article NPOV, but the article could do with a lot of expansion. jguk 18:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suppressed text and illustration:

The following (lightly re-edited: see History) sections of text and an illustration by an important French 19th century artist were suppressed by the above User:Jongarrettuk. Readers may judge for themselves Jongarretuk's interpretation:

"Le Bain turc," J.A.D. Ingres, 1862

The Orient employs a Latin term Oriens referring simply to the rising of the sun, to imply "the East". Similar terms are the French-derived "Levant" and "Anatolia," from the Greek anatole, two further locutions for the direction in which the sun rises.

"Orient" and "Oriental" have been used in English to refer to both Near and Far Eastern countries.

In the late 20th century, the terms "Orient" and "Oriental" are increasingly viewed as archaic or politically incorrect, with Asian-American activists and other opponents of the term arguing that it conveys cliché fantasies and stereotypical imagery... However, others argue that this is an example of political correctness gone too far, and believe there is nothing wrong with the term as a method of distinguishing East Asians (such as Chinese, Koreans and Japanese) from Middle Easterners, South Asians and Siberians, all of whom fall under the umbrella of "Asian."

When Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, director of the French Académie de peinture painted a highly-colored vision of a harem (illustration, right), a place that only Lady Mary Wortley Montagu had ever actually penetrated, he made his eroticized Orient publicly acceptable by his diffuse generalizing of the female forms, who might all have been of the same model. Nevertheless, if his painting had simply been retitled "In a Paris Brothel," the scandal would have ended his career. The exotic Orient made sensuality acceptable. Similarly, through the 20th century, the only breasts photographed in National Geographic were brown-skinned, in exotic cultures without automobiles.

In less academic hands, Ingres' orientalizing degenerated into increasingly realistic and detailed soft-core "odalisque" pornography before the end of the 19th century.

Unless one is travelling on the Orient Express, the "Orient" is a vague destination. The area is not homogeneous, and the term now refers chiefly to orientalism, the collection of Westerners' fantasies about the Middle East, China, Japan, and India. For discussion of history or current events, more specific words such as the Middle East, Southeast Asia, or individual country names are preferred.

Though "Occident" has no similar patronizing connotations, it is being sympathetically dropped from usage, as contemporary English speakers struggle to achieve history's first culturally-neutral language.

Many of the essentially dismissive and patronizing concepts associated with "Oriental" as expressed above are summed up— but in reverse orientation— in the epilogue to the "Chapter on the Western Regions" according to the Hou Hanshu. This is the official history of the Later (or ?Eastern?) Han Dynasty (25-221 CE), which was compiled by Fan Ye, (died 445 CE), and it succinctly expresses the Han opinion of the Western Hu culture (in what is now western China):

The Western Hu are far away.

They live in an outer zone.

Their countries? products are beautiful and precious,

But their character is debauched and frivolous.

They do not follow the rites of China.

Han has the canonical books.

They do not obey the Way of the Gods.

How pitiful!

How obstinate!

External links

• [http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/texts/hhshu/hou_han_shu.html#sec22 John E. Hill, translation in his e-edition of Hou Hanshu'

A more sophisticated view of the connotations of "Orient," with a broader cultural horizon, illustrated by a major artist, expressed with a little wit, are unacceptable, it appears. --Wetman 20:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Political Correctness

With regards to the section on political correctness in the U.S., the term "oriental" is being used to distinguish the difference between people of the Orient and people of Asia. "Asia" includes in a broad sense, countries oustide the Far East which consists of nations such as China, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Thailand. The use of the words "Orient" and "Oriental" is used by some to identify a finite set of people of the Far East which is part of Asia.

<Jun-Dai 22:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)> That's far from clear. In a general sense, I'd agree, but I think that the main thing is that most people who use the term don't really know what or where most of those countries are. It's not at all clear to me whether The Philippines is part of the Orient, or even Indonesia. What about Nepal, Mongolia, Siberia, and Tibet? The only countries that comfortably fit inside of the term as I generally see it used are Japan, China, and Korea. </Jun-Dai>

Wikipedia has an article on Asia and also used an outside link, [1]...more later.Ariele

i find the word highly offensive actually, because it throws everyone from the Orient into the same pot. as far as my experience has shown, it refers to anyone from Asia and the Middle East, be it Japan, Tibet, Indonesia, you name it... i think emphasis is now put to put more distinction, such as calling someone Asian-American, Chinese-American, etc. or simply by the country they are from Japanese, Korean but certainly not "Orientals".. it´s like using the "N"-word for Africans. Gryffindor 23:03, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

That's certainly you're opinion Gryffindor, however I've yet to meet any person of "East Asian" origin who objects to the term "Oriental", indeed most prefer it. My reasoning for using it is based on my own view of the flawed 'continent' structure used to describe Eurasia. Let us not fool ourselves that the classing of Europe as a continent rather than sub-continent is entirely the result of a biased history. It is my view that Eurasia is better divided into five subcontinents - Europe in the West, 'Arabia' [for want of a better word] in the centre, Siberia in the North, India in the South and the Orient in the East. It is a distinction that takes better account of the geographic as well as cultural deliniations present among Eurasians. Only a fool would argue that European racial/cultural diversity approaches that found in what we call "Asia".

The term "Oriental", though antiquated, still works describing things like carpets because then it is descriptive rather than derogatory. But calling people "oriental is offensive in the United States because then it calls to mind a whole era of history when that term was used and it connotes unacceptable attitudes towards those people. --Rodham 03:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how the term "Asian" can be accepted where "Oriental" is rejected on the grounds that it is too wide. I also reject that it is anywhere near as offensive as the "N"-word - nobody uses the term "Oriental" with malice. - Walshicus--

Your arguement soley based on the fact that you haven't met any East Asian who objects to the term "Oriental" is deeply flawed, if not outrageous, especially the section about "indeed most prefer it." The term "oriental" itself is not an insult, but calling a person "oriental" is undoubtedly a disrespectful and derogatory racial epithet. The main reason the term "Oriental" is pejorative is because of its condescending connotation toward the people of that region and its association with colonialism. The word is reserved for referring to goods and products, not human.

undoubtedly??? No - clearly doubts exist, and there are people of Asian background who use it for themselves quite freely; especially third/fourth-generation North American Chinese and Japanese, for whom it's pretty much a non sequitur or somebody else's political football. Clean your own house first of words like gweilo before claiming extreme things about English words that have no derisive etymology built into them; Oriental had as much a looking-up sense as a looking-down when used, for example, concerning Ottomans or Mesopotamia or the Levant; likewise with the Far East. Oh - is the "Far East" also "undoubtedly direspectful and derogatory" now, too? Stop moving the etymological goalposts based on cultural insecurities and resentment; this word was in common use by Vancouver Chinese for themselves right into the 1980s; it was the arrival of the New Chinese who insisted on being called "Asian" (exclusive of South Asians, who they're notably bigoted against); it seems to me that there's just a lot of political whipping going on here. And, as stated, rather than criticizing white culture for perceived linguistic injustices, work on actual injustice instead of stupid red herrings like this; including that long passage/rant that I deleted earlier today, which was rabid in tone and more than a bit hysterical. "Take a pill".Skookum1 19:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all we are here to discuss whether the term "oriental" is offensive, not to kibitz people to go "work on actual injustice." I am definitely not here to criticize "white culture" but to refute your arguement that most Asians indeed prefer to be called "Oriental." The sole fact that it is illegal to use the term "Oriental" in legislation and government documents in Washington State show that the term is offensive to some Asian Americans. Just because the word "nigger" was commonly used to describe black people without derogatory term in the past, you wouldn't argue that it can be used now without offending anyone. I understand that you have the freedom of speech and no matter what the arguement is on wikipedia you are free to use the term "Oriental" to describe people, but the contemporary meaning of "Oriental" does include condescending overtone, and it does offend some Asian Americans, if not many.

At least in North America, people do use the term "Oriental" with malice. The word does not have derisive etymology built into it, but neither does the word "nigger." The arguement about its etymology and geographic meaning does not hold, since it is the connotation that people have issues with: Can you really go around saying "why can't I call you nigger? it only means black in latin." If people who are reffered as "Oriental" feel uncomfortable and insulted, then we should replace that term instead of pointing fingers at them for their alleged "victimology" and arguing that your friend Matt does not find it offensive. Matt does not represent the entire Asian race.

What the hell is the "Asian race"?! Asia is home to Arabic, Indian, Oriental and Siberian peoples - as well as Europeans! So what's this "Asian race"? Point to note; "Asian" refers exclussively to India in the UK. Hence BBC Asian Radio has nowt from China or Japan there... -Walshicus

"bemusement" etc.

<Jun-Dai 20:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)> Removed:

"and is viewed with some bermusement from a European perspective for whom the term has only a geographic meaning"

as it implies that the term actually has a geographic meaning

</Jun-Dai>

It does: "of the East". That's its geographic meaning.Skookum1 23:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

PC, part deux

It seems to me that using the term "Asian" is overly broad especially when it comes to the usage by the average American. When you hear a typical American refer to Asian cuisine, he would probably be refering to east Asian food from China or Japan (or possibly Vietnam, Thailand or Korea). I once checked a restaurant guide looking for an Indian restaurant. Knowing my geography, I looked in the Asian section--alas, there were no Indian restaurants. Apparently, the publishers of this particular guide regard India as not being part of Asia. Also, if you hear a racial description, for example, "an Asian reporter," your average American is not going to think Pakistani, Mongolian or Ainu, but probably Chinese or Japanese.

of course americans also call aboriginal americans indians. they're a bit confused and have trouble distinguishing what is what.

As do you. Sign your posts.Skookum1 08:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

usage of oriental

ok so basically the term oriental/asian is split in its usage between the uk sphere of influence and usa sphere of influence but what about places like france or germany. how do they describe chinese people? do they call them oriental or asian?

Varies. But this isn't about French or German words, it's about English as-she-is-spoke.Skookum1 17:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think that Europeans, if they're learning to speak English, would follow the UK standard since the UK is the major English-speaking power in Europe and the standard of English taught is British English across the continent. So if speaking English, other Europeans would probably use the term "Asian" to refer to people from the Indian subcontinent, or rather the Asian Subcontinent as it is called in the UK. GdaMan

its split in 2. uk/america, and europe. in the uk/usa, oriental refers to chinese. however, in europe, it refers to arabs.

Why is it derogatory?

Other countries still hold onto using Oriental, despite its derogatory nature

Oriental means "From the East"; what's derogatory about that? Oh, I know, I know, it's because East Asians don't like it any more and want to be called something else. In pure lexical terms it's no more derogatory than Asian or East Asian. Victimology is everywhere, of courseSkookum1 23:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Postscript to that, given the root meaning "oriental" ("from where the sun rises") it's really odd that referring to Japan as the Land of the Rising Sun isn't also considered ethnoparanoid/p.c.-offensive. And where I live we often go by the tag "Land of the Setting Sun", almost as a deliberate echo of the Japanese sobriquet. What really strikes me is the redefinition of English words by people whose appreciation of their usage and history is fairly limited, even stilted/jaded by personal prejudices and peceptions rather than actual linguistic discrimination; one of my best friends if Japanese-Canadian (third-generation, whatever that's called), and he casually refers to himself as "Oriental", i.e. as a descriptor of his appearance, rather than "Asian", which sounds stilted and contrived (Japan's not in Asia, of course, as it's an island; same argument as I have about NOT using "European" to describe Britons and Irish). Anyway, Matt doesn't use it even ironically, as someone third-generation Chinese might use "Chinaman"; he uses it as an ordinary word and has no issues with it. His native language is English and he speaks almost no Japanese, by the way.Skookum1 17:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And re British vs. US, it should be noted that the British and other Europeans still use "Red Indian", which would horrify Native Americans in the United States and First Nations people in Canada, even though they can almost accept, and often use, "Indian" without the "Red". And also not to be forgotten that US East Coast usages are different from West Coast, and ditto with Canada/BC (especially historically, given the much higher Asian/Oriental presence in CA/BC than farther east and the different idiomatic sense of many words between one shore of the continent to the other. Be wary of making any generalizations about US usage, or including Canadian usage with US, or pre-conceiving that there's a transcontinental standard to word-meanings. There isn't.Skookum1 18:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Skookum1, in response to your statement "Oriental means ' From the East'; what's derogatory about that?", then why is the word "Nigger" derogatory if it purely means "black"?(The word Negro stems from the Latin word Niger) Both words are offensive to the people of those races because they have condescending connotations associated with Colonialism and Slavery. I understand your point that the word did not start as an offensive racial epithet, but many contemporary Asian Amereicans find the word condescending and disrespectful. The term "Oriental" is for referring to products, not people.

Tell that to my Japanese-Canadian friend, who thinks nothing of using "Oriental" to describe/categorize himself; I've heard him accept people calling him Asian, but if he were to speak about himself, he'd use "Oriental"; and not even in the humourous/ironic way that long-time Vancouver Chinese will use "Chinaman" for themselves (especially when laughing at living up to a stereotype....as one of my friend's girlfriends would say in the car "Look at me - I'm driving like a chink!". And oh yeah, is she ever Chinese, and how, if you were to meet her). Point is, as I've been trying to make, that perceived bias is not always real bias; and the way a word is used in NYC or SF isn't necessarily how it's used in Singapore, Vancouver, or Istanbul. Looking for racist bogeymen in "white language" is a complete farce, especially when it's claimed that the word is racist "inherently" or "by definition" or whatever. And sign your posts, alright?Skookum1 08:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

From Jun Dai:

it implies that the term actually has a geographic meaning

to which I responded that it lexically and etymologically obviously has a geographic meaning, which is in fact of course how it was first formed/created; Jun Dai and so many others here are pretending that it doesn't have a geographic meaning. Yeah, neither doees "Land of the Rising Sun", I guess (which means the same thing).Skookum1 08:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Skookum, I'm really not sure about your argument that Ireland and Britain are not part of Europe because they're islands. Does this means that Sicilians, Corsicans, Ibizans, etc aren't 'European' either? Maybe you've been influenced by some Thatcherite who's adament to cling on to some old glorified vision of the UK as an Imperial entity that stands above the notion of continents. Also, I think only 5 year olds in the playground use the term 'red indian'. In general, we're so ignorant of the native peoples of North America that they very rarely come up in conversation.... PS, regarding 'oriental', in the UK it has lost most political/historical meaning and, as mentioned somewhere, is used mainly in positive reference to a broad range of cuisines from North Africa to Japan (all 'foreign' food is positive in Britain, as the 'native' cuisine is arguably the world's worst). Anyway, 'oriental' is very rarely used to denote humans of any shape or size.

The inclusion of the UK as "part of Europe" is, as people of a certain age know, relatively new; the old phrases/headlines like "Storm in channel - Continent cut off" come to mind. But also perhaps it's just a Canadian hangover from days of Empire, as we used "European" for someone straight off the Continent, and "Briton" (or something more specific like Welshman, Scot etc) for someone from the UK. Certainly in older uses of British Isles English "European" meant someone or some culture/language from the continent, from which Britain was excluded. The post-EUnification usage is where "European" now includes Britons, and in p.c. language in North American history, where it's used as a euphemism for the overtly racist "white" (in pure p.c. terms) and is entirely misleading for a number of reasons (long digression, if you're interested ask for a link to a discussion of same). Now, as for Sicily - if it was still under Moslem rule, would you still consider it "part of Europe"? Point is t that language is about convention and idiom, and rarely about exact definition; mind you, I hear Britons make reference on occasion about "going to America" when it's Canada they're going to; because they don't use "America" in the same context as Canadians and Americans do, but in reference to the continent, or to the New World in general. And "red Indian" I've seen a lot of, both on UseNet and elsewhere on the Web, and also have heard it on London's streets/in London conversation as recently as 2000.Skookum1 16:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair, enough, I just get irritated when Britons pretend they're not part of Europe. As a 'European' it makes me feel slighlty unwelcome in the country.....I associate the older usage of 'European' with the British National Party. About Sicily, yes i would count it as European, as the Moorish conquest is a valuable part of European history and culture and otherwise Spain would have to be cut off from Europe as well.

"Orient Express"

My most recent encounter with the usage of "the Orient" was in Graham Greene's Travels With My Aunt; in the old context of the Orient Express, it was Venice that was at the edge of the Orient, which included the Near East - the Near East being, in those days, the Balkans/Greece and Anatolia; now confusingly used also for the Mid(dle) East. As for "Oriental" I have Japanese-Canadian and Chinese-Canadian friends (3rd generation) who would more likely say "I'm Oriental" than "I'm Asian" - "Asian" being a newly-retooled word for East Asian, and now in our context (Vancouver BC) exclusive of South Asians; and which has never included Persians, Russians, Iraqis, etc, although technically of course "Asia" was in its original meaning Persia and Anatolia....Skookum1 23:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oriental vs. Occidental

So, if some Asians find "Oriental" offensive, do they also find "Occidental" offensive on our behalf? Because I've used it heard a lot; and it just means "Westerner" of course; although it does have a bit of a patronizing overtone at times...I suppose we should be offended, tit-for-tat.....Skookum1 23:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This sounds a bit like a straw man's argument. Few Asians would use the term occidental and I highly doubt it's used with the frequency of the use of the word oriental. If you use, it that's up to you. Personally, I've never heard the term used. In any case, it's usually up to the people who are being described. If they find it offensive, then it's their right. Fortunately, most people whatever their ethnicity aren't as petty as to need to find a term offensive just because a similar term is found offensive by another group.

Commonly it depends a lot on the history of the word. I think the reason why the term oriental is seen as mildly offensive by some is because of it's history. While it wasn't necessarily used in a degrotorary sense, it has a strong connection to the era of colonialism and was commonly used in the era where the people of region were regarded as inferior. Furthermore, for a variety of reasons, the term has IMHO anyway become somewhat antiquated and so many people who still use it when describe the people are those who maintain these antiquated viewpoints.

Also, I've never understood why some people insist on deciding that someone else is wrong to find something offensive. Sure, if there are misconceptions surrounding the use of the term or it's history then it's fine to point them out but other then that, it seems bizzarre that some people insist that it's wrong for someone to find something offensive. Of course, it's not uncommon to have differing views on the subject, check out Pakeha which is a term many Pakeha myself included (being both Pakeha and Chinese-Malaysian) prefer but others find it offensive. Nil Einne 13:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Oriental Question

In diplomatic history, this is a reference to the European Powers' efforts to shore up the Ottoman Empire while at the same time carving it up; trying to keep a balanced exploitation going, at risk of complete dissolution and the chaos that would follow (uh, 1919-present...sound familiar?); but the context is clearly that the Ottoman Empire was the Orient.Skookum1 23:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Article may be misleading

I'm from Malaysia although I currently live in NZ and I feel the article is misleading. While the term Oriental is used in names without fuss, I don't feel it's a common or accepted term when used to describe people of the region. It would generally be regarded as antiquated and I suspect a number of people would find it mildly offensive (I would). Asian would generally be the preferred term by far IMHO. It might be used to describe the area/region but only in limited circumstances. E.g. oriental food, art etc might be okay but I think most would find someone talking about computer parts mostly being made in the orient as bizarre. Nil Einne 12:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

On equating Oriental and nigger

I have admittedly been somewhat in the dark concerning the offensiveness of the term "Oriental" until recently encountering discussions such as this one. I was aware of the push to create more informed perspectives on Eastern, or Asian, or Oriental cultures, or whatever word you might choose, in particular to combat any persistently archaic or inaccurate connotations of that which is known as "Orientalism," but I did not realize there was such a mounting interest in, for the most part, abolishing the term. I held it, in fact, to be a term of positive connotation, and had thought it preferrable to "Asian," which is a term that has been even more variant even in its geographical meaning. "Oriental" is, of course, a broad term, but in that very sense a potentially useful one, when used with understanding of its soft, or imprecise, meaning. To generalize does not necessarily have to mean to insult, or the terms "Caucasian" or "English" would be likely to ruffle more feathers. I find it especially interesting that the use of a broad term applied to a large, somewhat loosely defined area, such as "Oriental," was hypocritically argued against above by someone using the seemingly equivalent term "African." That person, and many others, have argued that "Oriental" is the same as using "nigger" to describe, quote, "Africans" or people of African descent, but that is shockingly inaccurate in my view, as "nigger" does not refer to anything so concrete as geography, and instead applies to skin colour, which has as many shades or more as there are distinct cultures or countries in the geographic area of your choice. So, even assuming nigger to have so-called non-derogatory roots as a descriptor of skin color (which, come on folks, is a stretch - Negro and nigger are far cries from the same word), to use the term nigger would be much more equivalent to calling someone yellow (does the difference between "Oriental" and "yellow" become a little more palatable?). Now, of course, the term nigger has evolved, and is notably continuing to evolve, and can no longer support any claim of being an unbiased term for skin color categorization; it is offensive because it is a slur, like, for example, "chink," or "wop" (does the difference between "Oriental" and "chink" seem clear?... very good). What perhaps makes these terms clearly derogatory is that they are non-factual descriptors, or worse, intentional degradations of factual descriptors, or still more ignorant, manglings of imported terms from the language of the targeted people. "Oriental," while admittedly broad, does not, in its root meaning, fit any of those bills. At its most offensive, one could argue along the lines of "well, this is the term used in the past, and your past attitudes are deplorable, so don't use the term any more," but there is nothing inherently derogatory in the term, and reacting in such a defensive and closed-minded way to it will only ensure that it only survives and persists as a derogatory term; those who won't be bothering to listen to the PC lobby will still use it, while those with enough education and sensitivity to expand and/or ameliorate the term will be left feeling like biggots if they don't promptly eliminate it from their vocabulary. This is what happens when you target the specific term, and not, more reasonably, improper, inappropriate, or ignorant use of the term, in which case it wouldn't matter what term was used - you can call a group of people anything you like, but if you want it to be offensive it will be... those who use "Oriental" and in any way mean it to be offensive could just as easily use any other word. Now, in response to another post that tried to explain why people ask why a term is offensive, or question the validity of a person's offense at the use of a certain term, it is only natural to be taken aback when someone tries to declare what words can and can't be used, thus limiting our avenues of expression. Also, when someone implies or declares outright that a word that you use, and take to mean one thing, in fact means something else, and something quite undesired, one must ask why it has been taken that way... have you never been frustated at being misunderstood, and potentially judged unfairly because of it? Exactly.

Infophilic 05:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC) infophilic

African is not equivalent to oriental. The closest equivalent is Asian, since they are geographic terms. Oriental, on the other hand, is a semi-geographic term that is defined strictly in relation to another geographic area, as evidenced by the fact that it now generally refers to an entirely different part of the world (East Asia) than it did 150 years ago (Middle East and North Africa). I'm not going to defend the notion that it is equivalent to the term nigger, because I belive the terms carry totally different impacts. Nevertheless, both terms can be taken as offensive, though nigger is far more likely to than oriental. Oriental is generally, in my experience, considered more repulsive than offensive, since its use generally reveals a willful ignorance on the part of its speaker. Fortunately the term has become so rare in my everyday experience that I know longer have to think about it much (I don't see it much in the mainstream media, and I pretty much never hear it in everyday speech).

If you find your vocabulary limited by the absence of the word oriental, perhaps you should consider filling the gap by actually coming to understand some of what the term describes, at which point you won't really need it anymore. It's pretty common for people to be slow to realize the offensive quality that the term has come to contain for people that it describes, which makes sense since they are not on the receiving end of the term. Consider how many white people probably thought that nigger was a useful and unoffensive term 50 or 100 years ago. It shouldn't take too much searching on the Internet to see that there are people that find the term oriental offensive (and yes, people like you that are confused by this). Perhaps rather than automatically defending its existence in your lexicon, you should consider whether there's any real need for it to be there? What purpose does the term serve that you cling to it so? Its offensiveness/repulsiveness derives from the fact that it doesn't really describe anything; it simply defines its object in terms of its otherness--hence its migrating definition. You'll find many of the same people repulsed by overuse of terms like exotic (e.g., "I really like Thai food. . . it's so exotic!"). In most cases, it's not the terms exotic and oriental that are repulsive so much as the thought processes behind their use. Because of that, simply substituting the terms won't really solve the issue. What's really needed is more education and less arrogance. Jun-Dai 07:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S., as a side note, I just have to ask: what is less concrete about skin color than geography? Neither really seems more abstract to me than the other.

So describing someone by geography, i.e. which direction/hemisphere they come from, is discriminatory, like labelling someone by skin colour? Where on earth did you learn to think like this....oh, never mind, we already know that....Skookum1 07:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

! You must have misread what I've written (or are you trolling?). I never said that. Jun-Dai 07:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It sure sounded like it; like you were equivocating on Infophilic's observations about terms deriving from geographic origin not being in the same league as terms describing/degrading someone by skin colour, which is certainly the "logic" or context used by so many other posters to this page and the whiners who've decided that "Oriental" is offensive. If that wasn't your intent, please clarify because your post DOES read that way, i.e. unless you were simply focussing on the isolated lexical meaning of "less concrete", i.e outside the very pointed and obvious context that Infophilic was laying out; niggling on words, rather than meanings, is a game of semantics. If that's not what you're doing, please clarify.Skookum1 07:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Niggling on words? My point is simply that I don't understand what Infophilic means by concrete in this context, "lexically" or otherwise. I don't see anything more or less concrete in one or the other, nor do I understand the underlying meaning of referring to one as more concrete than the other. It has nothing to do with the rest of his post, which seemed pretty clear to me, and that's why I left it as a P.S., since it wasn't in any way at the heart of the issue. As for whether my post reads that way, I've reread it twice and I don't see it. Unless others weigh in and agree with you, I'm going to chalk it up to a misreading on your part. Jun-Dai 08:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

His use was idiomatic, but it's late in my time zone (1:06 am PDT) and granted it may have been a poor choice of words; I'll try to remember to return in the morning and explain why it made sense, at least to me; but I'm tired right now and should mull on it first anyway. Skin colour is nowhere near as exact a descriptor/defining characteristic as geography, though, if that's more or less what I think he might have meant; someone can have Irish DNA and be dark-skinned/haired or light-skinned/haired; ethnicity is like breeds of dogs; they all have the same DNA, from the chihuahuas and pekinese right up to the mastiffs and retrievers. Same with humans. Being from a certain continent vs another continent is somewhat more absolute than describing someone by skin colour or "race" (which is ultimately an abstract imposed by cultural values and discerned/defined i.e. subjective differences, even though those subjective differences can be observed in skeletal structure, pigmentation etc.).Skookum1 08:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to chalk your poor choice of words up to tiredness, then. I'd still like to see where in my post you found the claim that "describing someone by geography, i.e. which direction/hemisphere they come from, is discriminatory, like labelling someone by skin colour," because I'm quite sure I never made it. Not only did I not make it, but I would never agree with it (except in the point of niggling, in which I'd like to point out that they are both discriminatory by definition, simply because it is a matter of discriminating or discerning between things. But I know that's not what you meant by that statement, and that you meant something that had to do with oppression, or using those those discriminations to favor one group over another. I still don't know what Infophilic meant by more concrete, however. :-/ ) Jun-Dai 08:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Then so is calling someone "European" or "Asian". All words are discriminatory if you want them to be, especially national/ethnic labels: "British", "Chinese", "American". The issue is whether supposedly offensive words are inherently discriminatory or not. But again that's subjective. 150 years ago no one would have thought twice about calling someone yellow, white, black, red or purple polka-dotted, because the connotations for each people, depending on which people you were from, would be the same as saying (in the sequence listed) Asian, European (ack! - hate that word), African or Amerindian or Martian. In contemporary global politics, "American" is a dirty word; in historiography so is "British", in Vancouver traffic so is "Chinese" (I'm not being snide, I'm reporting a fact). But there's very little difference in context between Oriental and Asian, especially when the latter is in its less vague form as "East Asian" (apparently also now considered offensive, even though South Asian and Southeast Asian are not.....go figure). But no, about your first sentence; it wasn't a poor choice of words on my part, I was referring to Infophilic's use of "concrete" that you were troubled by; because you quibbled with it, it DID sound like you were opposing what he'd said.Skookum1 16:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of anyone being offended by the term East Asian. I'd love some citations for that one. Jun-Dai 18:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, most countries or ethnic groups have a perjorative connotation within some context or another (e.g., Dutch treat, American night in filmmaking). But this is all besides the point. What's more, the point you seem to keep trying to ascribe to me is quite counter to everything I've said. There is nothing inherently offensive about labelling people with regards to geography, skin color, etc. However, terms do acquire offensive associations (ones like nigger, chink, jap, and wop have done so very strongly) because of the derogatory context in which they're used, even though many people didn't consider them offensive at one time or another. Other terms, like oriental are simply appalling because they don't describe anything useful and reveal the ignorance of the person using it. Some people have been appalled to the point of offence, while others are simply repulsed, and still others see no harm in it at all. When a term becomes offensive to the group it describes, there are really two paths: if the term is useful, find another one that doesn't have as much baggage, or is more obviously descriptive (e.g., Japanese for jap, black or African-American for nigger); if it is not, let it die. While everybody here has been clamoring to defend their right to use the word without offending anybody, nobody has actually defended the word itself. It is so poorly defined that it really is all but meaningless, and thus it has mostly dropped out of mainstream parlance as far as I can tell. Jun-Dai 19:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

But this page is about "Oriental" and "The Orient", which CANNOT be equated to "nigger, chink, jap, wop, wog, etc. "Black" and "coloured" are also acquired-derisives, i.e. words which have become labelled derisive even though widely used by the people described, to be replaced by a synthetic "African-American/Canadian" - a term which cannot distinguish between an old-stock American/Canadian and a new immigrant from Africa; in Canada "West Indian" gets used for that particular subset, but there are also white West Indians. In the case of "coloured", there is an ironically "acceptable" term "person of colour". See Native American name controversy and its talk page for more on the same kind of thing. Point is that there is and was very little grounds for pronouncing "Oriental" to be derisive; only because it was decided by the culturally insecure that it was derisive. Much as "Chinese" has become in my city for various reasons, which is why the Chinese political community co-opted the term "Asian", which used to include South Asians but no longer; in due time "Asian" will be pronounced to be "derisive", even as "European" has been commonly used as a derisive, and a very incorrect description of fair-skinned people (as also "Caucasian", since so few of us have roots, ethnic or historical, in the Caucasus). "Oriental" is a tempest in a teapot. Too bad there's no more Emperor, or "Celestial" would still be around - but it, too, would be pronounced derisive even though it was NEVER used that way.Skookum1 19:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Where do you stand on gweilo, by the way?Skookum1 19:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

At this point, it seems to me that you're just spouting. You haven't addressed any of my questions, and you've only thrown out some questionable "facts" to argue against points that I never made. You are absolutely correct that other categorizations all have their problems, and this is true for categorization in general, especially those that are defined popularly rather than defined by, say, anthropologists with a specific purpose in mind. But problems with terms like African American don't resolve the fact that terms like oriental are so problematic as to be nigh meaningless. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder about something.

As for gweilo, well, when the people using that term represent the dominant culture and the bulk of the power in my country, it will probably become pretty offensive, especially if it becomes tied to a history of derision, exclusion, and ignorance. If that happens, it would be to that dominant cultures credit to retire the term. Jun-Dai 20:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute - your whole question about "concrete" was something that was irrelevant to the obvious meaning of Infophilic's comment; a red herring; "spouting"? No - I'm trying to establish exactly where you DO stand, because it seems you're obfuscating and not much more.Skookum1 20:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll grant you that it was irrelevant to the meaning of the rest of his comment, though not in any way a red herring. I firmly established its irrelevance to the rest of what he and I were saying by (a) putting it in a post-script and (b) calling it a "side note." What's more, I didn't establish any position relating to the main discussion in that side note, as I had no intention of antagonizing the main discussion. You are the one that turned it into a red herring by making it the main point of discussion and trying to find a way of using it to misinterpret the rest of my post. What's more, I've maintained a consistent and, to my view, straightforward position in this whole matter, whereas you've been doing little but obfuscating all these points by arguing against points I never made and throwing in unsubstantiated, biased "facts" to back up those positions that I'm not arguing against. And you still haven't answered any of my questions. Jun-Dai 21:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"A tempest in a teapot"... well said. Firstly, what I intended by "concrete" was solidity, ascertainability, factuality, i.e. that geographic location was much more definite, if you'd rather, than race. Also, since you've allowed that "Oriental" is at least semi-geopraphic in nature, I still hold it in much closer equivalence with the term "Africa," or "Asia," for that matter (I remain unconvinced of a genuine difference between "Asia" and "Orient"), than you would like. Now, I'd like to pose something, without the inappropriate use of a p/s: since we're treading in such p.c. waters, has anyone wondered when I became "he"? It's not necessarily relevant to state whether I am a "he" or not, but it IS relevant to take a second, as the supposedly more "educated" (and before you lay any claim to that, make a point to avoid phrases like "know longer"), or at least less "ignorant" person that you are, to consider the fact that you have just mutually adopted a a gender-discriminating term (yes, I'm using discriminating here simply to indicate identification of difference, though it seems me could have a whole other string going on the semantics of "discriminate") without knowing how accurate it was, and without flinching. If you would like, I could bring together a fair-sized social movement that would find that offensive, though I, personally, expect that it was done innocently enough, and, as such, I am not particualrly offended by it. You see, that's because I know that nobody's perfect, and neither is their applied vocabulary, no matter how "educated" they are. So, my best course of action when I notice use of a term without it being properly considered beforehand is to point it out, simple as that - NOT to try to eliminate the term (there is no such thing as "retiring" a term, despite the earnest wish of anyone it may offend, for reasons founded or unfounded). Again I say, that all that it will do to protest the term itself, under the pretext of its meaning, will be to solidify that meaning or connotation for the term, at the exclusion of any others. After the defensiveness that comes with realizing one's own hypocrisy wears off (relax, it's natural, I know it well enough myself), condsider, if you will, that what is going on here can be easily seen as a lexical witch or (I'll say it if only to highlight the absurdity) warlock hunt. As I have clearly argued, and as no one has since refuted, the term "Oriental" is not equivalent to terms, particularly slurs, which are overtly disparaging, and not simply discriminating, or differentiating; I have given, above, some of the easy ways of identifying the difference within the structure of the words themselves. If the only arguments against the term "Oriental" that you can present are that 1) it is too vague, and only has grounds in a subjective assessment of relative position, and 2) that it carries with it some connotations of former perceptions and in some cases misconceptions about the people to whom it is supposed to loosely apply, then I feel deeply unsatisfied with your objection to the term - on the first point, because terms of differentiation, of various specificities, are natural, useful, and, fortunately, flexible, and I'm afraid that objecting to someone using themself as a reference point when describing someone else is an absurd concept (is this like saying "Don't call me different from you" ?); on the second point, because there is no need to be ashamed or in denial of incomplete understanding, whether present or past, but instead, there is a need to acknowledge its inevitability, to sincerely strive to evolve our understanding, and to acknowledge and endorse the ameliorizing potential that exists in evolving the meaning of our descriptors, rather than running scared from their former inadequacies - the bogeyman is only real if you make it real. If those who object to the term "Oriental" were to take a few moments to consider the many ways in which it can have positive connotations, perhaps it would become, instead, a favored term. Maybe the next time you hear a term that offends you, you will take a moment to calmly inquire as to what the person using it meant by it, and perhaps a rational discussion would ensue, most likely to the benefit of both parties. To react, instead, irrationally, and to impose the worst meaning for the term, regardless of the speaker's intended meaning, is both ignorant and lazy, and terribly unproductive; why should we assume the worst from each other? No one wants to be called a bad name, but that doesn't give us all license to censorship of anything we think might be a bad name. I'll never deny your right as an individual to request not to be referred to in a certain way, but to make a notably large generalization and attempt the elimination of a term in entirety, steps outside of your rights and into mine and those of others. If you can choose how to be referred to, I can choose how to refer to you, can I not? If I choose a way that offends you, examine your reason for taking offense, and ask me to examine my choice as well - this is the responsibility that comes with our rights. This is, of course, exactly what we are doing here, but only as a handful of individuals, and having no right to make claims for larger groups. A little more patience and a little less paranoia, and you'll find that the offensiveness of the term "Oriental" will be rapidly diffused, I am certain, either by improving your reaction to it, or by improving others' use of it (including mine), or both. Infophilic 16:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Infophilic

Well, re: your first sentence, I'm still not sure what you mean by that. I don't at all agree that geography is more solid, ascertainable, or factual than skin color (your original comparison). Race is another matter altogether, and I would certainly would not be one to suggest that it was something "factual". As for definite, well, many things in geography may be more well-defined than skin color, but oriental as a geographical reference most certainly is not one of them. Even American is more definite, given that the context usually indicates which of several possible meanings are implied. In oriental there is no such possibility, except for a few idioms that are more well-defined, such as oriental rugs. As for relationship to African or Asian, well, those terms refer to specific places, and their reference to the people that live there is a matter of metonymy. Oriental, on the other hand, refers to a cultural grouping specifically assembled through its otherness, which is why it has been able to move from referring to one geographical area and cultural group to another with relative ease. Its geographical linkage is very weak, and for that matter, nigger (in the US, anyways), refers in practice pretty exclusively to African Americans (to the best of my knowledge, anyhow), and that causes its definition to be semi-geographic in nature as well (i.e., all people that nigger is generally used to refer to have a lineage from Africa within several centuries, and generally speaking, they are all African Americans). I'll grant that oriental has a more geographical basis in its etymology, but it is by no means a useful geographic term, and it is almost exclusively used to define a vague collection of cultures who share geographical correlation no more than African Americans or people descended from Africans do. And yes, no one has refuted your point that oriental is not equivalent to nigger, and I don't intend to start doing so (and it's not at all clear to me why Skookum seems to continually make the assumption that I am therefore arguing against that point (perhaps because I am arguing against some of your points?), despite my repeated statements to the contrary. Skookum's basis of this inference--and this really drives me up the wall, which is perhaps the goal--is in my questioning your use of concrete).

As for he, well I'll confess that I, like many others, fall into the trap of using that as the default pronoun. If you really want to make a comparison to use of oriental, I'll start by pointing out that English provides no alternative for he, other than to avoid using pronouns altogether or to switch the default to she (or to go back and forth between them), whereas oriental serves no basic grammatical functions that are awkward to replace. One thing that they have in common, however, is that they are both troubling symptoms of underlying assumptions built into our language. You are probably correct in that protesting the term itself doesn't really have a useful effect (or at least the effect is very limited), but for many people it is a matter of creating a break in the loop between culture and language (culture effects language and language effects culture) and having a rallying point for working against the assumptions the terms represent, which are much harder to describe and explain since cultural values, judgements, and assumptions are not as well-understood and readily codifiable as language. However, I consider the fact that the term oriental has come to be considered offensive by some and repulsive to others as a sign of progress against these underlying problems, almost as much as I see the general infrequency of the term as a sign of that progress. I rarely see it (try searching for it on google news, I can't really find anything there that isn't a reference to a specific institution), and the times I do see it, it is either in conjunction with something that is exoticizing East Asia (e.g., travel brochure) and probably pretty repulsive to me anyways, or it is being used by someone whose grasp of English is somewhat limited (it makes sense that someone that is essentially coming from outside of Western culture and language isn't going to be offended by the linguistic implication that they are, well, outsiders, which is why offence to the term, so far as I have seen, has come exclusively from Asian Americans).

He is more troublesome, for the reasons I mentioned above, and yet there are still signs that people are making the effort to undercut the underlying assumption that it is based on (there are a lot of texts that switch back and forth between the two). It is, on the whole, a much more difficult problem to solve, and yet there is a much larger group of people affected by it, and I expect that at some point an alternative will become palatable to the mainstream, be it 30 or 60 years from now.

Your argument re: differentiation strikes me as absurd. The people to whom oriental is loosely meant to apply exist outside of the English language less and less as time passes (increasingly due to the de facto imposition of English as the one true international language), and they certainly don't exist outside of it in the sense that I exist outside of you. There is an exception to this, which is that if you are talking to another person, and you both belong to one group and are talking about a separate group, the "us" and "them" groupings make sense. If, however, a white person is talking to a Chinese American and says "let's go get some oriental food" and is referring to a Chinese restaurant, then we are witnessing an exchange that is part of a larger frame of reference wherein Asian Americans are expected to take on certain underlying assumptions built into the dominant culture and language, which brings us back to the he example. That Asian Americans raised with English as their first language would object to this is only natural, as it is that feminists would object to he as the default pronoun, because it either causes or represents (or both) an assumption that the referent actually is male (as exemplified by the common use of she as the default pronoun for certain professions, such as nurses and secretaries).

The remainder of your argument seems to rest on the assumption that this involves assuming the worst intentions on the part of the speaker, which it does not.

And the ignorance to which I was referring was not ignorance in general, and definitely not a reference to education level, it was simply a reference to ignorance of the subject that the speaker is attempting to describe with the term oriental, though really it is probably more often an appeal to that ignorance on the part of the listener (as is the case with people that write travel brochures, or put up signs in their restaurants for "oriental food," etc.). Jun-Dai 23:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Tempest in a teapot" - actually, I think JunDae's picking on your use of "concrete" is another example of the tempest-in-a-teapot method of flummoxing arguments by introducing irrelevant lexical arguments. I was, by the way, going to say "tempest in a teapot - a nice china teapot", but it didn't roll off the eye/tongue right; must be a good turn of phrase in there somewhere. But observe this - Chinaman is condemned for being "inherently racist" but why aren't Chinatown, chinaware, and China Clipper? What all this is about is ethnic hypersensitivity to perceived humiliations; and also what it's about is what Orwell wrote about - Newspeak; eradicating words that promote undesirable feelings and thoughts (Plato was into that to, which a lot of the Republic is about, particularly the chapters on music).Skookum1 17:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Who has refered to chinaman as "inherently racist"? Jun-Dai

See Talk:Chinaman and any number of threads in soc.culture.canada, van.general, talk.politics.tibet and soc.culture.china from about 10 years ago; huge debates, part of which were spun off of campaigns by local BC politicos Jenny Kwan (now an MLA - elected official, provincially, that is) and Victor Yukmun Wong who made a big issue of the word; thereby helping to revive it, no less. But rest assured, that's the phrasing that was used and IIRC is used in Talk:ChinamanSkookum1 08:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard that claimJun-Dai

Again, more evidence of the huge variance between the situation in the United States and that in Canada; this was a big debate here, and we've all heard it, ad nauseam.Skookum1 08:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

, and I certainly don't believe it to be a general opinion. I believe it is simply considered racist by some because of the contexts in which it has been so long used, which are not easily erased from the minds of those it has been used on, and there is nothing inherent about that in the term. Chinatown and china (dishware) lack that contextual association, at least in a relative sense, and are thus not considered offensive (by anyone that I know).Jun-Dai

The argument made in the newsgroups, and by Kwan and Wong, was that the word is "obviously" dergatory and "was coined by white people to insult Chinese people with." - that it was somehow lexically "obvious" it was a derisive word; one specious rationale was that if it wasn't an insult it would have been "Chineseman", as in Frenchman. I'm not making this up, Skookum1 08:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you haven't brought up latino and hispanic, since that's a much more complex issue,Jun-Dai

not part of the Canadian milieu in the same way as in the US; neither one is considered better or worse than the other up here.Skookum1 08:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I like how you speak for, er, all Canadians so much. Jun-Dai

Well, I'm certainly better qualified to do that than you ever could. And point of fact, which you can query on Talk:Canadian English or Talk:Canadian words, neither latino nor hispanic have derisive connotations in Canada, and generally there's no anti-Latino discrimination like there is in the United States; if we were going to use something derisive/derogatory for a Latin-American or Hispanic-American or chicano or Spaniard or "other" (whatever that would be), we'd simply use "spic" (same as rather than chinaman we'd be more likely to use "chink"). As for the "inherently racist" thing, looks like I'll have to dig that up out of UseNet archives and some old Jenny Kwan quotes; the exact phrasing may not have been used on Talk:Chinaman (other than by me, anticipating its context from the older debate) but the sentiment is obviously there; same with the ethno-goons here who maintain that Oriental is obviously racist, or whatever the phrasing is. And you know what I know about you by now, given your attack on "concrete" and now your challenge to my telling you that your point about latino vs. hispanic is IRRELEVANT in Canada? What I know about you is that you're a nit-picker, a niggler. And I'm going away for the weekend, to go to the high hills and play some music in the Cariboo goldfields, and will be far away from the yadayada; oh and by the way, although it relates to Talk:Chinatown, I'll be visiting Barkerville; where Chinatown was one end of the street, but in the other 2/3 of town there were also Chinese businesses; no segregation, no regulation, no restriction; same as Vancouver, Victoria, New Westminster and dozens of other Chinatowns in North America (not just Canada) that were NOT created by alleged Chinatown-creation laws. As for "The Orient" and "Oriental" it's amazing to me that you would pick on "concrete" and the latino-hispanic contrast/comparison while not going after the dodos who you say you don't support on the "Oriental" issue. And likewise, as said elsewhere, if it is only young Asian-Americans who resent this term (and not, AFAIK, Asian-Canadians, as I've heard them use it quite commonly), you appear to be one of them, and my message is the same: GROW UP and stop worrying about other people's words and thoughts, and worry about your own.Skookum1 16:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to resent the imposition of multiculturalism in an increasingly diverse cultural environment and you're so good at misreading other people's points (find me one spot in that thread where Hong Qi Gong claims that chinaman is inherently racist), I'm not really willing to assume that you know what you are talking about with regards to the perspectives of one minority group or another. I'm not going to go digging around through newsgroups, though if you can link me to a couple specific examples, I'll read them (you seem to be familiar with them enough to quote them). As for Talk:Chinaman, I don't see anyone there making the argument you describe; I only see you arguing against that point repeatedly (at least three times), which, if no one's making it, doesn't really prove anything and only frustrates the conversation as it has here. Jun-Dai 15:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Frustrates the conversation? That would seem to be exactly what you were doing with your challenge of "concrete" re Oriental vs Nigger. Obfuscation is the specialty of the propagandist, and of the p.c.-ist quasi-intellectual. Why don't you deal with the real world, instead of the world as YOU think it should be?Skookum1 16:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to be crystal clear on this issue: as far as I've read, no one on this thread or the other one has, in any phrasings or sentiment whatsoever said or implied that oriental or chinaman is an inherently racist term, and so comparisons to chinatown is purely a straw-man argument. Both terms have acquired connotations and implications that some find objectionable. Jun-Dai 17:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for chopping up my posts so that they are almost completely unreadable to anyone else following the conversation. If I have time, I think I'll try to reassemble them below. Jun-Dai 17:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You know what, Jun-Dai? You're not only a nitpicker, you're a whiner, and a whinger. I broke up the post so I could respond to each of your inanities one-by-one, i.e. "in context". Fine, have it your way; reassemble them if it helps you assert your sense of self. I could care less; I'm off to the mountains. Have fun pontificating and judging others in my absence. Don't forget to niggle.Skookum1 18:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a good time to point out that you've continually violated WP:AGF and are now violating WP:CIVIL. And I just have to ask, was your statement "Have fun pontificating and judging others in my absence. Don't forget to niggle." meant to be ironic? If not, it's awfully hypocritical. Jun-Dai 20:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

one where within the common group that both terms describe (they don't describe the same group, but there is a large overlap) there are people of the strong opinion that one is correct and the other offensive. While I see the reasons for rejecting hispanic much more clearly than I do with latino, I will certainly aim to avoid using latino with someone that is offended by it. Jun-Dai 23:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To me that is the heart of the issue. When you discover a term is offensive to someone else, do you tailor your language to suit the reader/listener? Offensiveness is frequently illogical, and almost always highly context dependent. As far as I can tell, outside of the western United States, Oriental has no derogatory connotation. I grew up in SF, where the term Oriental is widely regarded as offensive, but if you ask most kids why, they have no idea. All they know is the only time they ever heard the word Oriental it's in the context of a derogatory remark. It reminds me of a comment by a guy from Hawaii, "I don't understand why all these white people get offended by the word 'howlee'. They keep saying it's derogatory, it's not derogatory, it's the 'stupid' before it that's derogatory."

I disagree with Jun-Dai that a word should ever be 'retired' from the language, nobody can tell me that I "can't" or "shouldn't" use the word Oriental if I want to, but I won't be surprised if using it casually causes someone to disregard what I have to say in a forum or beat me up on the street (Seriously Skookum, try going to a bar outside of UCLA, and explaining to the biggest guy you can find that he should consider himself 'Oriental' because it means someone from East of Rome).---Lkb 03:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm 6'5", 240 and have been as big as 285; and what you may not know is that big guys are generally friendly to each other and don't make a fuss about stupid, irrelevant arguments over which word is nicer than which other word; that's a short guy thing, as is being ignorant towards big people, or invoking stereotypes about them (as you just have).Skookum1 08:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You make a very good point, it was dumb of me to reference a big guy fighting stereotype, especially when it was irrelevant to my argument and I have no idea about the size or propensity for fighting of anyone reading the post. Interestingly though, your response helps make my point, being careless or insensitive in your wording or choice of examples can cause people to disregard the message you are trying to communicate, and focus negatively on how your wording reflects on you as a person.

Basically, I was just trying to say whether or not Oriental is offensive seems to depend a lot on where you are, rather than what line of logic you follow about it's etymology. When I have been in the Midwest, Canada, or the UK, it seems to be the normal way to refer to people of Asian descent, whereas in SF or LA, for younger people it is almost universally considered derogatory, and you will pretty much never hear it except in a historical or derogatory context. This seems to lead to the exact argument in this thread, which I have seen repeated over and over in social situations where someone from say, Minnesota, rationally (based on their context) assumes that Oriental is only considered offensive to some small minority of politically correct twits, while correspondingly, people in SF or LA need to be convinced that said person is not actually a racist jerk, but just had no idea that the word was offensive. ---Lkb 17:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW from the Newspeak page: Generically, newspeak has come to mean any attempt to restrict disapproved language by a government or other powerful entity.Skookum1 17:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Orientals" heard just now at the supermarket

Yeah, well, maybe she's only a "banana", but at about 5:30 pm today at my local Safeway, I struck up a conversation with the nice lady passing out samples of fresh mango and blueberry, who was "Asian of some kind", about persimmons. In the midst of discussing the merits of the two kinds, she said "well, Orientals like to use it for....". Now, I can't imagine a Canadian of African descent saying "well, niggers like to use it for..." or an Italian saying "wops like to use it for...". She obviously preferred to use "Oriental" - in reference to people - without any qualms. But again, maybe she's a banana and her opinions can be discounted as irrelevant in p.c.-think, huh?Skookum1 01:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire "oriental" vs. "asian" preference is a generational one. Generally, Americans of asian ethnic descent under the age of 40 view the term "oriental" as a derogatory term. This can be empirically tested by finding a crowd in an asiantown (yes, I just made up that term) of your choice and yelling "Wow, look at all the orientals!" Assuming what I posit is correct, the person that stabs you will be under the age of 40. You can label people's arguments about the offensiveness of the term "oriental" as "p.c.-think" all you want, but it won't change the fact that a large majority of politically and socially aware asian-americans consider it derogatory. As a disclaimer, I have only interacted with asian-american communities in Hawaii, Washington, California, and New York. I'm open to the idea that communities in other regions would have different opinions. --Umetaro 01:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Asians from Asia or older Asian Americans might not protest very loudly, but young Asian Americans are almost certain to. --Splitpeasoup 02:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

But perhaps that's simply because they haven't grown up, and haven't clued into what's important in life; among which is the "don't be annoying" maxim from Miss Manners; don't belabour other people with YOUR insecurities, in other words...(yes, I know that can be turned back on me, but I'm not insecure in the slightest....).Skookum1 08:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Words are derogatory if they are consistently used with a derogatory meaning. "Nigger" is derogatory for that reason and that reason alone, not because there is something "inherently" wrong with the word. In Britain "Paki" is a derogatory term for a South Asian, derived from an abbreviation of "Pakistani". "Pakistan" actually means "pure country", so Paki means "pure" - hardly derogatory. But that's irrelevant. Likwise "Aussie" (an abbreviation of "Australian"), and "Brit" (an abbreviation of "Briton"), follow exactly the pattern as Paki, but are not thought to be derogatory because they are not used that way. In order to argue that Oriental is derogatory you would have to show that the choice of this word in usage, rather than another word of the same meaning, was intended to be derogatory. In other words you would have to show that it was the equivalent of saying "there's a nigger" rather than "there's a black person". It is the choice of use to convey derogatory intent that determines whether or not a word is an ethnic slur. Simply deciding that you don't like it for some reason is a wholly different issue. Paul B 15:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In South Africa the term 'colored' is used to mean 'mixed-race' and is not derogatory. However, the term 'colored' is considered derogatory in the U.S., with some exceptions (such as the NAACP). "People of color" is becoming PC vogue, while "colored people" is absolutely unacceptable. Improper use of the word 'color' indicates ignorace of contemporary US race relations on the part of the speaker, but is rarely used with derogatory intent. My impression is that the term 'oriental' is similar. It is not an inherently offensive word, but if used when not dialectically appropriate it conveys ignorance and unwillingness to attempt propriety. Like the word 'colored' it is appropriate in some contexts and not in others. Anyone attending to modern race relations understands that there are reasonable objections to the term 'oriental' even if the current replacement-of-choice, 'Asian' is inadequate. Nicole J 12:01, 06 October 2006 (UTC)

Because English is (and always has been) a language of the people whose constructs and usages are ultimately decided not by the Norman kings, nor by the Washington State legislature, but by those who speak the English language, the question the reader must answer for himself is whether substituting "Asian" for "Oriental" achieves a goal of cultural-neutrality, or if such change actually substitutes one cultural bias for another cultural bias.

The article should maintain a neutral viewpoint and let the reader decide for himself.

Explanation of my fixes

• Mentioning internet blogs & talks as ref is inappropriate. Only one site, the Chinese Medicine, was relevant to Wikipedia, and that didn't even mention anything about the word in its daily usage.
• Internet discussion is not the only place for examples. By giving internet as the primary example of the discussion that go on about the term oriental, you are being exclusively promotional.
• Give reference from website articles, books, research papers, etc. to wherever I put in text or {{fact}} in Wiki.
• Somebody define to me what "legislate" means in that context. Used in lawmaking?
• Somebody needs to pull out a poll about "conservatives" being the ones who disagree. Michelle Malkin is just one person.
• "However the term "Oriental" remains a far more precise cultural-geographic descriptor than "Asian" which is equally if not more vague, and that all the peoples of the Orient have at one point in history been subjected to the authority and culture of the Middle Kingdom"

That is POV. If some scholar actually advocates this, then put a ref.

• Kowtowing to the objections from liberals there has been a gradual shift in academia toward alternative terminology that they feel is more politically sensitive

Old English is fine in writing essays and articles, but not terms like "Kowtow". Words that everybody can understand should fit. Actually, we don't even need that phrase.

• "Far Eastern" society doesn't use the term "Oriental".
• Ok, the "conservative" example was just one instance. We need a scholar who actually says this & writes it as one of his publishings.

(Wikimachine 14:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC))

"Old English"? The word "kowtowing" has nothing to do with old English. I don't know who added it, but it's obviously a witty and intentional reference to to the importation of "Oriental" terms into the English language, and to the idea of accepting customs defined by other cultures. Paul B 10:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't saying "kowtowing" = old English. It's Chinese word. And it's not fine in essays. (Wikimachine 17:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

"Kowtow" is not really appropriate anyway as it's hardly a neutral term. LDHan 18:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Change of "The Far Eastern Association" to "Association for Asian Studies"

If the change of "The Far Eastern Association" to "Association for Asian Studies" is suppose to be an example of the gradual shift in academia toward alternative terminologies that supposedly are more politically proper than the term "Oriental", then it is not a valid one.
First, as mentioned above the name of the society didn't use the term "Oriental".
Second, according to the Association for Asian Studies article the change of name was because its expansion of its field from East Asia to cover all areas of Asia. The name change also seems to pre-date the common North American use of "Asian" to mean "East Asian". LDHan 15:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it. LDHan 14:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)